MOOLCHAND BADHAI vs M/o Railways

1

(Reserved on 08.09.2026)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Through video conferencing)
th
this the 15 day of October , 2026
HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Original Application No. 559 of 2016
1. Moolchand Badhai, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Jairam
Badhai, presently working as Katora/SECR, R/o Qtr. No.
6/3, Railway Colony, Katora, District – Koria, Chhattisgarh –
497331.
2. R.K. Choudhary, aged about 48 years, S/o Shri A.K.
Choudhary, presently posted at Bilaspur SECR, R/o Shiv
Vihar, Ganesh Nagar, Nayapara, Bilaspur – 495008.
3. Bhartendu Kumar, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Keshaw
Prasad, presently working at SECR, BSP, R/o Budhwari
Bazar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
4. Ravi Shankar, aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Gopal Poddar,
presently working at SECR/Sakti, R/o Rajpur Bhawan,
Jagannathpuram, Sakti, Chhattisgarh – 495689.
5. K.K. Mishra, aged about 38 years, S/o Nandjee Mishra,
presently posted at Kargi Road/SECR, R/o Railway Colony,
Kargi Road, Kota, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495113.
6. Satish Kumar, aged about 30 years, S/o A.N. Mistri, presently
posted at Jaithari/SECR, R/o near Railway Colony, Jaithari,
Chhattisgarh - 484330. …….Applicants
Advocate for the applicants: Shri A.V. Shridhar
V E R S U S
Page 1 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

2
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Railway Board, Ministry
of Railway, Rail Bhawan, Raisena Road, Rafi Marg, New Delhi
- 110001
2. General Manager, South Eastern Railway, New G.M. Building,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - 495004.
3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
4. Assistant Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
5. R. Vijay Kumar Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Deputy
Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
6. Shiv Prasad Markam Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Senior
Section Engineer (Signal), South East Central Railway,
Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh – 484001.
7. R.K. Hembram Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Deputy
Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer, South East Central
Railway, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
8. Badal Borkar Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Deputy Chief
Signal and Telecom Engineer, South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – 495004.
9. Santosh Kumar Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Deputy
Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer, South East Central
Railway, Sarbehra, Korba, Chhattisgarh – 495677.
10. Hem Lal Bandhan Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Senior
Section Engineer (Signal I), South East Central Railway,
Jairam Nagar, Bilaspur – 495550.
11. Jai Kumar Tande Senior Technician SM (Cons), o/o Senior
Section Engineer (Signal-I), South East Central Railway,
Bilaspur– 495004. ………..Respondents

Advocate for the respondents: Shri Ramakant Mishra through V.C .


Page 2 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

3
O R D E R
By Smt. Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicants have filed the present original application
challenging the order dated 31.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) whereby
juniors of the applicants have promoted by giving the benefit of
reservation.
2. The contention of the applicants is that vide order dated
20.07.2015, the respondents have issued a suitability list of 40
candidates for promotion to the post of Senior Technician including
juniors to them by giving benefit of reservation in promotion
(Annexure A-3). Thereafter, vide order dated 31.07.2015, 39
Technician of S&T Department were promoted to the post of Senior
Technician on the basis of restructuring. The grievance of the
applicants is that while issuing this promotion order, the
respondents have promoted juniors to the applicant by giving benefit
of reservation in promotion. Therefore, they were denied the benefit
of restructuring and could not be promoted to the post of Senior
Technician despite being senior in Technician category. Being
aggrieved, the applicants filed a representation dated 10.09.2015
(Annexure A-5). Having received no response, the applicants have
filed the present OA.
Page 3 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

4
3. The learned counsel for the applicants has contended that
despite the applicants hold the requisite seniority for being
considered for the restructuring and normal promotion, they were
denied promotion for grant of reservation in promotion as a result of
which the private respondent nos. 5 to 11 have been empanelled
though they were junior to them. Thus, the action of the
respondents is unjust, arbitrary and against the law laid down by
the Hon’ble Apex Court. The learned counsel for the applicants has
stated that the respondent nos. 5 to 11 have been promoted vide
order dated 31.07.2014 by granting benefit of reservation in
promotion, whereas the applicants have been granted normal
promotion vide order dated 30.12.2015 (Annexure A-2) though they
were senior to them . In support of his claim, the learned counsel
for the applicants has cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India and others reported in
2006 (8) SCC 212 and prayed for placement of the applicant above
the respondent no. 7 in the order dated 04.12.2015.
4. The official respondents (hereinafter referred to as
‘respondents) have contested the OA and have filed their reply.
Referring to the contents of said reply, the learned counsel for the
respondents has stated that as per the Railway Board Estt. Rule No.
Page 4 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

5
177/10, the reservation in promotion is being followed unless any
amendment or modification is received from the Railway Board.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the
Nodal Ministry i.e. DOPT vide OM dated 11.02.2016 has clarified
that the issue emanating from Supreme Court judgment dated
09.10.2006 in the case of M. Nagraj is still under examination.
Therefore, as per the Article 141 of the Constitution of India, there
is no impediment in granting reservation in promotion. No exception
can be taken if reservation is granted to the SC/ST candidates in
promotion as it is constitutionally permissible. Therefore, the learned
counsel for the respondents has stated that the action of the respondents
is justified and the OA filed by the applicants deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the pleadings. We have also considered the written
submissions filed by the learned counsel for the applicants.
6. It is noted that the applicants are aggrieved by non-
empanelment of their name in the list for promotion by giving the
benefit of restructuring on the ground that the persons junior to
them i.e. the private respondents, were empanelled by granting
benefit of reservation in promotion. The contention of the applicants
counsel is that the respondent nos. 5 to 11 hav wrongly been placed
Page 5 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

6
above them by giving him the benefit of reservation in promotion. In
support of his claim, the learned counsel for the applicants has also
cited the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M. Nagraj
(Supra) .
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagraj (Supra) has
held that reservation in promotion even by selection method cannot
be automatic or resorted to mechanically. In the event if any
Government proposes to make reservations in promotions it must
first conduct an exercise in the nature of survey and collect
quantifiable data to satisfy the court that there was a compelling
need to resort to reservation on the ground of lack of or inadequate
representation of the class of community intended to be given the
benefit of promotion. The proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Nagraj has been reiterated in the case of U .P.
Power Corporation Ltd . Vs. Rajesh Kumar dated 27.04.2012 (Civil
Appeal No. 2608/2011) . It is noted that in the present case, no
such exercise or survey has been conducted by the respondents in
the absence of which there can be no question of reservation in the
proposed promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Goods. In view of the
settled law, we are of the considered view that such promotions may
Page 6 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

7
be made strictly based upon seniority cum suitability as per
seniority of the candidates regardless of their caste/tribe status.
8. Having regard to the argument advanced on behalf of
respondents that in preparation of the panels and promotion order
for the post of Senior Technician, the respondents have merely
followed the relevant RBE No. 177/2016 on reservation of SC/ST
candidates in Railways. This argument cannot be accepted as there
is nothing on record to suggest that any exercise, as prescribed by
the Apex Court, had been undertaken by the department.
9. Having regard to the clear, consistent and explicit view held
by the Apex Court with regard to the question of reservation in
promotion, it is apparent that unless the controlling factor of the
compelling reasons stated in Article 16(4) are met, no reservation in
promotion can be proceeded with by the State. In case they take up
such exercise then in each case the State would have to require to
place before the court the quantifiable data and satisfy the court
that such reservation has become necessary on account of
inadequacy of representation of SCs /STs without affecting general
efficiency in service. The concept of efficiency, backwardness and
inadequacy of representation have to be identified and measured
and that would be contingent upon the availability of relevant data.
Page 7 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY

8
This would depend on numerous factors. Apparently, it is for this
reason that the enabling provisions are required to be made because each
competing claim seeks to achieve certain goals. How best these claims can
be optimized, can only be done by the administration in the context of
prevailing local conditions in public employment. If the State concerned
fails to identify and measure the backwardness , inadequacy and affecting
of efficiency then even in the face of existing enabling provisions,
reservation in promotion cannot be under taken
.
10. In view of the facts as stated above as well as the ratio laid
down by the Apex Court, O.A No. 559/2016 is allowed . The
respondents are directed to undertake a fresh exercise with regard to
promotion qua the applicants as well as the respondent nos. 5 to 11
to the post of Senior Technician31.07.2015 (Annexure A-1) in strict
compliance of the principle laid down by the Apex Court. The
respondents shall comply with the above direction within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
11. All associated Misc. Applications stand disposed off.
12. No order as to costs.

(Smt. Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Anand…
Page 8 of 8
ANAND
PRAKASH
2026.10.16
17:00:37+05'30'
DUBEY